Current Events > Impeaching Trump is nice and all, but consider abolishing the Electoral College

(+) Yeah! (+)

TheHoldSteady posted...

Hmm let's put that to the test. If the popular vote won elections instead of the electoral college we'd have had...

Andrew Jackson over John Quincy Adams in 1824. Jackson went on to be president anyway, so we can be less heavy on the hypothetical here. JQA had a pretty uneventful presidency because he got blocked by Congress. Jackson I think did more harm than good. Despite having some good anti-corruption principles, he was horribly racist (even for his time) and his bank war lead to a recession. Funny bit of trivia is that Jackson actually wanted the college to be abolished, haha. John Quincy Adams wins

Samuel J. Tilden over Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876. Hayes was a solid president. Got us through an economic panic and railroad strike. Had morals. I don't know too much about Tilden to be honest but Hayes wasn't bad. Rutherford B. Hayes wins

Benjamin Harrison over Grover Cleveland in 1888. Again, Cleveland went onto become president anyway. Harrison is kind of underrated. Nobody really talks about him anymore, but he had some landmark policies like Sherman Antitrust. Not a big fan of Cleveland. He had a forgetful first term and his second term was marred by questionable economics. Might be an unpopular opinion, but Benjamin Harrison wins.

Al Gore over George W. Bush in 2000. That's some kind of time skip. I'll stop short of saying that Bush was Bush and Gore would've been better by default. I try not to be too harsh on Dubya, because I mean, you put yourself in the boots of President during 9/11 and think of how tough that must be. Still, you watch Gore's interviews about the early 2000s and I think he had by far the more rational response. This is an easy one. Al Gore wins.

Hillary Cliton over Donald Trump in 2016. Uggh. I don't like Hillary. But I don't know. She's bought out by corporations, she's disingenuous...I think she'd have been a weak president, but I think we're really gonna be feeling the damage Trump has done in 2024. Hillary Clinton wins.

Overall it's 3-2 in favor of abolishing the electoral college in my book, but you're right that a popular vote won't always produce good candidates.

You gotta think of the ripple effect as well. For example, no Bush means no Cheney, no Rumsfeld, etc.
---

PleaseClap posted...

Also, is caution still trying to claim that he's not a racist? Because yikes @ the "they will not replace us" part of that post

Holy shit, yeah, that was definitely a slip on his part, showing us his true "colors"

That's a Caution melty for the ages.
---

Eh, I don't put much stock in the popular vote.

But then I don't put much stock in voting in general, it's the reason I just abstain every election.
---

He's also spreading the debunked conspiracy theory (that he knows is untrue) that there are a significant amount of illegal votes from immigrants

---

Yeah! Fuck the interests of all those fly over states!

---

Rebel_Patriot posted...

Ah yes mob rule always works out great. Of course if Hilldog won no one would be like derp the electoral college should go derp

I have always been against the electoral college. Do you feel we should replace all popular votes with electors because of he threat of "mob rule"? If not, then what makes the Presidential election special? Why can't the people have the power on that one? Why would anyone that isn't currently a dictator be opposed to democracy?

---

Wouldn't a really easy way to test this be for the Dems to hold their primaries in all states at the same time and don't report on the results until every vote has been counted? Then we can see how popular the idea really is.

---

Jiek_Fafn posted...

Yeah! Fuck the interests of all those fly over states!

Oh look, another person pretending that a popular vote would represent a smaller portion and variety of people than an electoral college vote, when he knows the opposite its true.

---

I will only accept the result if the winning candidate receives a clear majority. Anything less than that and there better be a special runoff election with the top 2 finishers to ensure that only the most popular candidate is declared the winner.
---

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Oh look, another person pretending that a popular vote would represent a smaller portion and variety of people than an electoral college vote, when he knows the opposite its true.

Now it doesnt because candidates have to campaign nationwide. When you can win with even more targeted demographics why wouldn't you go that route? Do you feel Republicans will work on the honor system?

---

Jiek_Fafn posted...

Yeah! Fuck the interests of all those fly over states!

So instead we should fuck the interests of everyone unfortunate enough to live in a state where just enough people disagree with them that they never have a reason to vote?

If only there were other politicans besides President that could also be democratically elected to represent our interests if that one election doesn't go our way. We could call them senators, representatives, mayors, etc. Too bad we live in America where apparently you'd be electing emperor if the Electoral College went away.

---

Abolishing the electoral college creates more problems than solving them. Do you honestly think that any politician would focus on campaigning in places like North Dakota or Rhode Island, when they'd have much bigger fish to fry in New York and California? They wouldn't. They already put a heavier focus on the bigger, more populated cities as it is. And the solution isn't to cram more people into those bigger states where traffic, public transit, and job hunting is already an overcrowded nightmare. And even though the smaller cities and states would still have a voice, through Congress or local governments, what happens when those smaller states are voted down or passed over for extra funds in favor of "the people's" more pressing issues (issues that are predominant only in larger cities and states) ? Because that is what happens in counties or states where one or two large cities control a majority of the vote.

https://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-us-population-lives-in-just-9-states-2016-6?utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=topbar

This article is from 2016, and given the ever growing amount of immigrants entering the country (with sanctuary states like California being their most popular destination), there's a pretty good chance those 9 states will soon out vote the other forty-one. Just look at places like Portland OR, where the city has more people than any other, and that one city makes the rules for the rest of Multnomah county. Does a candidate really represent the people, if he or she only focused on half the population? Of course not, they would only represent those people, and place more attention on their problems.

Another thing people should consider, is when the pendulum inevitably swings the other way, and a majority of the population consistently votes Republican for the next few years or whatever, and we end with a full Republican government. Abolishing the electoral college doesn't ensure that someone like doesn't Trump come into power, instead it makes a much larger room for error or a voting imbalance.

You may think that's impossible, but it is inevitable, just like Socialism went from being whole heartedly rejected in the 60's and 70's to being almost fully embraced in 2016-2018.

---

Man, how many Great Replacements can we get in one topic?

---

Jiek_Fafn posted...

Now it doesnt because candidates have to campaign nationwide.

False. And you know it is false. With the current system, people only need to campaign in battleground states. They have to appeal to people in Ohio and Florida, but don't have to appeal to people in states like California nor to people in Mississippi. With a popular vote, they'd have to appeal to a much larger variety of people. Yes, California would have a larger say overall, but there is a larger variety of people in California than their are in Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Kansas combined.

But you know that. And you're being intentionally dishonest.

---

Jiek_Fafn posted...

Now it doesnt because candidates have to campaign nationwide.

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/campaign-events-2016

Does this look like nationwide to you?
---

Trump literally finished with an entire percentage point lower of the vote than Romney did and Romney's opponent actually finished with over 51% of the vote lmao
---

Izrael posted...

Do you honestly think that any politician would focus on campaigning in places like North Dakota or Rhode Island, when they'd have much bigger fish to fry in New York and California? They wouldn't.

They don't now!

Izrael posted...

This article is from 2016, and given the ever growing amount of immigrants entering the country (with sanctuary states like California being their most popular destination), there's a pretty good chance those 9 states will soon out vote the other forty-one.

This is an argument for abolishing the Senate; 50 percent of the people should not hold 18 percent of the power.

Izrael posted...

Does a candidate really represent the people, if he or she only focused on half the population? Of course not, they would only represent those people, and place more attention on their problems.

The electoral college enables candidates to win with an even smaller share of the population.

Izrael posted...

Another thing people should consider, is when the pendulum inevitably swings the other way, and a majority of the population consistently votes Republican for the next few years or whatever, and we end with a full Republican government.

You mean the thing the EC gave us three years ago?
---

Removing the electoral college is a waste of effort unless we replace it with something better. Simple majority is NOT a good system for elections, and is exactly as bad as the electoral college.

OctilIery posted...

Removing the electoral college is a waste of effort unless we replace it with something better. Simple majority is NOT a good system for elections, and is exactly as bad as the electoral college.

I don't see why.

Anyway, I say we skip primaries, put all on ballot, and do rank voting. Seems like the best way to maintain information about people's preferences.

---

OctilIery posted...

Removing the electoral college is a waste of effort unless we replace it with something better. Simple majority is NOT a good system for elections, and is exactly as bad as the electoral college.

It's not nearly as bad as the electoral college, and you know that.

---

DarkChozoGhost posted...

False. And you know it is false. With the current system, people only need to campaign in battleground states. They have to appeal to people in Ohio and Florida, but don't have to appeal to people in states like California nor to people in Mississippi. With a popular vote, they'd have to appeal to a much larger variety of people. Yes, California would have a larger say overall, but there is a larger variety of people in California than their are in Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Kansas combined.

But you know that. And you're being intentionally dishonest.

Are you pretending like issues that are important to the deep red and blue states aren't already addressed? The battleground states are a mix so they'd be thrown out in campaigning in favor of extra easy votes in NY or TX.

---

OctilIery posted...

Removing the electoral college is a waste of effort unless we replace it with something better. Simple majority is NOT a good system for elections, and is exactly as bad as the electoral college.

Pretty sure any direct vote is better than our current bullshit. Ranked-choice would be ideal.

---

Jiek_Fafn posted...

Are you pretending like issues that are important to the deep red and blue states aren't already addressed?

They'd be much better addresses with a popular vote. And it would help even more people that are currently being ignored.

But you know that already.

---

Caution999 posted...

Making it popular vote would just give a rather strong incentive for the 46 other states to literally secede from the union. Effectively, only four states would matter with the largest cities and people in rural areas would be screwed.

California, New York and Texas already have a HUGE number of electoral votes.

Out of all the completely idiotic Republican talking points, I'll never understand this one

If you're a Republican voter who lives in California, your vote is literally 100% worthless under the EC.

There are millions of people on both sides whose votes are meaningless.

Popular vote gives them all an equal voice, and is the only chance of actually flipping some states to the other side, because people who realize the system fucking blows now would probably be more likely to go vote instead of staying home.


---

Jiek_Fafn posted...

Are you pretending like issues that are important to the deep red and blue states aren't already addressed? The battleground states are a mix so they'd be thrown out in campaigning in favor of extra easy votes in NY or TX.

What is easy voting in NY or TX? If you throw out colors winning states, then every vote is equal. The Republicans in New York and California or the Democrats in the Deep South finally have a voice. You are no longer ignored because 55% of your state consistently votes one color. There wouldn't be states to win. I don't know why people pretend states are hiveminds anyway.

---

It would be great if they changed it and Trump still won because he decided to campaign in populated states instead of the battleground states.

I wonder what you guys would be saying then.

people are so stupid. trump is a demagogue

---

seqntenialbeast posted...

It would be great if they changed it and Trump still won because he decided to campaign in populated states instead of the battleground states.

I wonder what you guys would be saying then.

people are so stupid. trump is a demagogue

At least the people would be in charge

---

hockeybub89 posted...

I don't know why people pretend states are hiveminds anyway.

Because they're republicans, and even though they know a popular vote is objectively a better system, they advocate against it because it would hurt their numbers. Republicans pick sides on issues like this solely based off if it helps them, not on whether it's right or wrong. They also pretend Democrats do the same.

---

Yeah I dunno. One minute some CEmen will say we cant rely on people to vote for the best representative but then a week later will say a popular vote is the best.

---

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Because they're republicans, and even though they know a popular vote is objectively a better system, they advocate against it because it would hurt their numbers. Republicans pick sides on issues like this solely based off if it helps them, not on whether it's right or wrong. They also pretend Democrats do the same.

It's just funny to hear "California bad" knowing there are millions of Republicans there that are silenced thanks to this obsession with the Electoral College.

---

DarkChozoGhost posted...

They'd be much better addresses with a popular vote. And it would help even more people that are currently being ignored.

But you know that already.

I dont think telling the rural states to piss off is better. New Yorkers dont give a shit about Omaha and vice versa. California isn't a larger variety of people like you said earlier. They dont give a shit about the midwest. They care about their issues.

---

Jiek_Fafn posted...

I dont think telling the rural states to piss off is better.

And a popular vote wouldn't do that. But you know that, and you're being dishonest.


---

KillerSlaw posted...

Yeah I dunno. One minute some CEmen will say we cant rely on people to vote for the best representative but then a week later will say a popular vote is the best.

Make no mistake. Everyone in this topic would not be happy until their ideals were imposed on the country. There will always be an argument of why a current election system is bad if the person arguing doesnt like who won.

It has nothing to do with the people deciding. they would just say the people are being manipulated and have no agency over their vote.
or they would say the turnout is too low and people should be forced to vote. then they would say people in prison should get the right to vote. Then they would say teenagers. Then they would say Puerto Rico.

and so in. Until whoever they wanted to get elected got elected.

---

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Because they're republicans, and even though they know a popular vote is objectively a better system, they advocate against it because it would hurt their numbers. Republicans pick sides on issues like this solely based off if it helps them, not on whether it's right or wrong. They also pretend Democrats do the same.

Republicans are kings of manipulating demographics. Do you think they won't run on some make NY, Chicago and LA grat again campaign? Or do you expect them to keep to their values and not do anything it takes to win?

---

Jiek_Fafn posted...

I dont think telling the rural states to piss off is better. New Yorkers dont give a shit about Omaha and vice versa. California isn't a larger variety of people like you said earlier. They dont give a shit about the midwest. They care about their issues.

Parts of California regularly talk about wanting to split off from each other.Agaib, there are millions of Republicans in California that have absolutely no say thanks to the EC. But please continue to pretend the entire state is Democratic hivemind. Are you seriously trying to argue that the most populous states are not the most diverse?

---

DarkChozoGhost posted...

And a popular vote wouldn't do that. But you know that, and you're being dishonest.

More people live in urban areas than rural. Which would you think is easier to target?

---

Jiek_Fafn posted...

I dont think telling the rural states to piss off is better. New Yorkers dont give a shit about Omaha and vice versa. California isn't a larger variety of people like you said earlier. They dont give a shit about the midwest. They care about their issues.

Rural states already have a massively disproportionate amount of power in the Senate. They are also massively subsidized by larger and more populous states. So no, I don't think they are getting the shaft.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

Parts of California regularly talk about wanting to split off from each other.Agaib, there are millions of Republicans in California that have absolutely no say thanks to the EC. But please continue to pretend the entire state is Democratic hivemind. Are you seriously trying to argue that the most populous states are not the most diverse?

I'm saying they have more interest in issues that directly effect them but may not effect other parts of the country.

---

Jiek_Fafn posted...

More people live in urban areas than rural

Would it kill Republicans to try to win some of them over?
---

DarkChozoGhost posted...

It's not nearly as bad as the electoral college, and you know that.

Yes, it is. Direct majority has the exact same problems, just reshaped. It's no better.

Jiek_Fafn posted...

More people live in urban areas than rural. Which would you think is easier to target?

You're still thinking in a system where areas matter. In a system where literally every vote is equal, does a liberal in NYC have any more pull than a conservative that lives 6 blocks over?

---

ScazarMeltex posted...

Rural states already have a massively disproportionate amount of power in the Senate. They are also massively subsidized by larger and more populous states. So no, I don't think they are getting the shaft.

I agree that it's massively disproportionate and that should definitely be toned down.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

You're still thinking in a system where areas matter. In a system where literally every vote is equal, does a liberal in NYC have any more pull than a conservative that lives 6 blocks over?

No, but a liberal state like NYC or California has significantly more pull because of the density of the urban liberal population.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

Best video I've seen on it

hockeybub89 posted...

You're still thinking in a system where areas matter. In a system where literally every vote is equal, does a liberal in NYC have any more pull than a conservative that lives 6 blocks over?

Because you're asking Republicans to essentially bribe votes on a national level by making things like make LA great again. I in no way expect Republicans to fight a moral campaign.

---

seqntenialbeast posted...

Then they would say Puerto Rico

Lmao jfc

---

Jiek_Fafn posted...

I'm saying they have more interest in issues that directly effect them but may not effect other parts of the country.

Do most people truly care about what happens far away from them? Why should I feel any more for someone in some Midwest states than anyone in any other state? This seems like less a defense for the Electoral College and more a demand for some other kind of electoral system. And let's not forget that Congress and state/local government also exist to represent more focused interests

---

Jiek_Fafn posted...

I dont think telling the rural states to piss off is better. New Yorkers dont give a shit about Omaha and vice versa. California isn't a larger variety of people like you said earlier. They dont give a shit about the midwest. They care about their issues.

Yet under this system if you don't live in a swing state your vote is just as pointless.

---

Jiek_Fafn posted...

Because you're asking Republicans to essentially bribe votes on a national level by making things like make LA great again. I in no way expect Republicans to fight a moral campaign.

I have no idea what this means or what it matters. I care more about a popular vote than about moral Republicans.

---